The Madras High Court on Thursday, 14 November 2024, denied anticipatory bail to South Indian actress Kasthuri, who is facing allegations over comments she made against the Telugu community in Tamil Nadu. A single-judge bench led by Justice Anand Venkatesh dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by the actress, who had been apprehensive of arrest following a complaint lodged by a member of the Naidu Mahajana Sangam.
The comments in question were made by Kasthuri at a Brahmin protest meeting in Chennai on 3 November 2024, asking for a law similar to PCR. During her speech, she allegedly remarked that the Telugu people, who had historically come to serve the courtesans of Tamil Kings, were now claiming to be of Tamil descent. The remarks sparked widespread backlash, prompting Kasthuri to apologise, stating that her comments were directed at a specific group of individuals, not the entire Telugu community.
Kasthuri had moved the court seeking anticipatory bail in light of the criminal complaint filed against her by the Naidu Mahajana Sangam. The Thirunagar Police had registered a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 196(1)(a), 197(1)(c), 296(b), 352, and 353(3) along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. These sections relate to defamation, promoting enmity between communities, and transmitting offensive material.
While hearing the plea, the court had previously remarked that Kasthuri’s comments were “completely unwarranted” and expressed disapproval over her decision to speak against women of the Telugu community. Justice Venkatesh noted that Kasthuri, also identified as a political commentator, should have refrained from making such comments, especially during a public event. The judge further pointed out that Kasthuri’s apology did not sufficiently address the offensive remarks made about women.
In her plea, Kasthuri claimed that the complaint against her was filed under instigation from the ruling party and criticized what she described as the state administration’s “intolerant and vindictive attitude.” She argued that no violence or public unrest had occurred as a result of her speech and that, on the contrary, she had received support from Telugu people across Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana.
When questioned by the court about her remarks on Telugu women, Kasthuri clarified that her comments were not intended to attack the women of the community but were a general statement based on historical facts. She argued that the remarks were not derogatory and did not imply any malice toward the women of the Telugu community. Kasthuri contended that the complaints against her were based on a misinterpretation of her speech.
Opposing the bail, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that Kasthuri’s comments were made with malicious intent and could potentially disturb the social harmony of the state, especially given the already sensitive relations between Tamil Nadu and neighboring states such as Kerala and Karnataka. The prosecutor further stated that custodial interrogation was necessary, as the charges were serious and an anticipatory bail should not be granted.
The court, after considering the arguments, denied the anticipatory bail application, stating that the seriousness of the case warranted further legal scrutiny.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.